The Internet is a strange place. On the same day that I donated my own time to answer a couple of questions on an experts website that I have been a part of for a couple of years, I get banned from the Expert Law Forum for posting a link to this blog.
Within hours of posting about my case on the Expert Law Forum, I tried to log in this is what I saw.Anyways, I went ahead and emailed the website owner to see if there is some type of compromise that can be worked out since I truly don't know what I did wrong.----------------------------------------------------
The kind of personal injury attorney I am looking for in the Los Angeles Area....
I am looking either for a senior aged attorney who wants to fight for the elderly, and is interested in winning the case and possibly setting a precedent.
Or, the attorney can be someone who just passed the bar.
If you happen to be a successful attorney and have impressive, "just passed the bar" resumes in front of you, you may find this case an excellent way to see how a prospective future hire performs in court. The attorney will get a percentage of the settlement (assuming we get one) so this is not a for free hire, and you get to see how the attorney performs without it draining your own law firm's resources.
If you are a law school professor and would like to recommend someone, that is fine by me as well.
I believe this case could establish a court precedent that will positively protect elderly people in the future.
The other 2 or 3 cases will only be filed after the first case is resolved. I would prefer that future cases be filed through an attorney.
All of these cases have a similar theme that involves protecting the elderly from unfair insurance practices.The first case is a personal injury case involving my own parents who were rear ended by another driver.
Although I currently have the case filed In pro per I would prefer to have an attorney representing us.
Insurance companies can easily do more to protect the elderly when it comes time to exchange insurance information after an accident.
It is our assertion that after the accident, the other driver further endangered my parents with his behavior while the two sides were supposed to be exchanging insurance information. I won't get into the specifics here.
My mother went for one physical therapy treatment after the accident but did not go back again because the treatment was not helpful. She felt if she continued the treatments the treatments might do more harm than good.
It appears that because my mother only went for one treatment, the insurance company low balled their offer to her even though my mother also suffered two T.I.A.'s after the accident. The causal relationship may not be provable, but it most likely cannot be disproved either.
Our original attorney did not want to take the matter to court, however they did assist in filing the case in pro per.
The insurance company did not follow my request that any future discussions be initiated via a letter first. Apparently, an attorney representing the insurance company and their policy holder called our home and made an alleged offer for double the amount. I was so shocked to just get a cold call out of the blue after I specifically requested future communication start with a letter that I did not initially understand who this person was.
That insurance attorney has actually put in writing that I am a liar over this point even though it was their inability to read the case files BEFORE CALLING that caused the confusion. The insurance attorney has also put in writing that the death of my father was an "irrelevant" reason to delay the proceedings.
There are three specific issues that I would like to see addressed.
Firstly, I would like future insurance company policies to include language that encourages policy holders to act civilly after an accident and when insurance information is being exchanged. The person who caused the accident put my father and mother through unnecessary and additional stress after the accident, and even put their physical well being in harms way as well. I want to combat this type of behavior in the future and believe this case can help accomplish this.
While there is no guarantee that getting the insurance companies to add language to their policy will reduce aggressive behavior after an accident, not putting a caution in is questionable since it does not cost the insurance company anything to implement.
Our request is similar to putting a caution on a ladder not to go above a certain step. Before such a warning on a ladder was added, the idea of a ladder warning was probably ridiculed as being unnecessary, but after it had been added, it no doubt has reduced the number of accidents involving the unsafe use of a ladder.
In another instance, when police officers actually visited gang member's homes and verbally read to them that they could end up tried, convicted, and jailed if they were seen with other gang members, gang crime actually dropped in those neighborhoods. Yet before such direct action was taken by the police, many would have ridiculed the idea that a police officer actually visiting a reputed gang member at their home to inform them about associating with other gang members in public was a pointless act, yet they too have now been proven wrong.
I am not suggesting the insurance company actually enforce the warning, that would be up to the party that was endangered by the actions of the other person to prove, but it would make their case stronger if the warning actually existed, the end result could be more polite behavior during a difficult time.
The second issue this court case would like to raise is to not set an unfair treatment standard for an elderly person, to not discriminate against them because of their age. My mother was 79 years old when she went for her first and only physical therapy treatment.
After first being injured by by the rear end collision from the defendant's car, being rudely treated by the defendant during the exchange of insurance informatin, to getting no physical relief after one physical therapy treatment, my mother felt she could be injured even moreso if she went back for another physical therapy treatment. She made a wise decision to not seek more treatment, but instead rest at home, and for that decision, she has been lowballed in a settlement offer.
Why should a younger society tell a 79 year old woman that she MUST go for several treatments when she knows her own 79 year old body better than someone half her age? Why are people half her age dictating how she must behave, especially after already having three unacceptable experiences related to the accident occur; the accident, the alleged behavior of the defendant after the accident, and the first treatment. Each time the other person that was involved was significantly younger and in both instances the result was not amicable for my mother.
She said enough is enough after the first therapy treatment. Rest at home, for her situation, turned out to be a valid therapy option. Even at age 79, she was very active, preparing meals and doing many types of housework. She was not able to do those activities after the accident until she rested and healed.
Her decision to rest at home certainly was equal to or better than having someone half her age handle her neck in a way that put fear into her of an additional injury if she continued going for treatments.
The third issue is Damages. My mother did experience two mini strokes after the accident. While there is no direct proof that the accident caused the mini strokes, the whiplash affect followed by two mini strokes afterwards may definitely have some causal relationship.
The value of this case could be as little as a thousand dollars, but could also result in a much much higher jury settlement if the jury feels that the insurance industry was too inflexible with how they deal with the elderly.
I believe the three issues I have raised, if victorious in a court decision, will help all elderly people in the future and could start your own career down a successful path by having created an actual court precedent.